Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Richard]

Good to see SF Barnes making a late dash. One question though, I wonder why in the batsman thread we had a heap of batsmen from years gone by, but here the bowler lists seem very modern. Is it because all the best bowlers have been in the modern age? Or do the older ones not get the respect they deserve? And if the latter is true, why do the older batsmen stay in our memories but the bowlers are so easily forgotten?

Something I have often wondered, TBH - most of the best bowlers of the early- and mid-20th-century were spinners - finger mostly in England (Rhodes, Blythe, Verity, Lock, Laker, Underwood) and wrist in Australia (Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, you could add Mailey but it'd be debatable IMO), and a combo of finger and mystery in West Indies (Valentine, Gibbs, Ramadhin). It says a lot that Larwood, who was none too successful as a Test bowler, was almost certainly the best seamer until Bedser, Lindwall, Miller, Statham, Trueman, Tyson, Adcock, Heine et al in the late 1940s and 1950s. There were of course Nissar and Singh from India who never got the Test chances they deserved.

Have often thought the 1950s seamers never get the credit they deserve, though, TBH. Lindwall especially would be right up near the top of my list. Adcock is certainly worth more than a second look too.

Obviously, SF Barnes, if you take a proper look, stands-out as something close to the Bradman of bowling. If he'd been a bit less of a social misfit and certainly if he'd played 20 years later than he did he might well be as unequivocally the best as Bradman was.

But before Larwood, the only fast-bowling name I really know much of is Lockwood. Yet I'm sure there must have been some fine ones in Australia, and am sure Sean or Sir Nev (if around presently) would be happy to fill me in on a few names. None of them ever seemed to play much.

 

[Richard]

I have never seen it work for the Aust. team, and in a country with as many quality cricketers as Aust I think they should never try it again

So you'd prefer it if Australia picked a nothing spinner (let's say Daniel Cullen as a for-instance) who doesn't even look of First-Class standard if there were 4 seamers all of whom looked seriously like they could be Test-class?

I just cannot fathom that TBH.

 

[archie mac]

Something I have often wondered, TBH - most of the best bowlers of the early- and mid-20th-century were spinners - finger mostly in England (Rhodes, Blythe, Verity, Lock, Laker, Underwood) and wrist in Australia (Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, you could add Mailey but it'd be debatable IMO), and a combo of finger and mystery in West Indies (Valentine, Gibbs, Ramadhin). It says a lot that Larwood, who was none too successful as a Test bowler, was almost certainly the best seamer until Bedser, Lindwall, Miller, Statham, Trueman, Tyson, Adcock, Heine et al in the late 1940s and 1950s. There were of course Nissar and Singh from India who never got the Test chances they deserved.

Have often thought the 1950s seamers never get the credit they deserve, though, TBH. Lindwall especially would be right up near the top of my list. Adcock is certainly worth more than a second look too.

Obviously, SF Barnes, if you take a proper look, stands-out as something close to the Bradman of bowling. If he'd been a bit less of a social misfit and certainly if he'd played 20 years later than he did he might well be as unequivocally the best as Bradman was.

But before Larwood, the only fast-bowling name I really know much of is Lockwood. Yet I'm sure there must have been some fine ones in Australia, and am sure Sean or Sir Nev (if around presently) would be happy to fill me in on a few names. None of them ever seemed to play much.

Walter Brearley, Frank Foster, Tom Richardson, Jack Gregory, Tibby Cotter, Jonah Jones, Constantine

 

[archie mac]

So you'd prefer it if Australia picked a nothing spinner (let's say Daniel Cullen as a for-instance) who doesn't even look of First-Class standard if there were 4 seamers all of whom looked seriously like they could be Test-class?

I just cannot fathom that TBH.

I would tbh, four fast bowlers have never done it in my lifetime. Some exposure to Test cricket my bring a young leggie through much quicker, with the right captain tbf

 

[pasag]

Got to disagree with you there Archie, I'd take a good fast bowler ahead of a crap spin bowler these days. There's no way a Cullen or whoever should be picked ahead of a Tait, Hilfenhaus against India should Hogg be injured. Picking a spin bowler just for the sake of it, even when there aren't any good ones knocking about it is a recipe for disaster imo. Plus Test cricket isn't a training ground either, it's for the best against the best.

 

[Richard]

I would tbh, four fast bowlers have never done it in my lifetime. Some exposure to Test cricket my bring a young leggie through much quicker, with the right captain tbf

Don't think exposure to Test cricket with the right captain will turn a wristspinner who's not even good enough to excel for his state into a Test-class bowler TBH.

I seriously hope Aus might play 4 seamers sometime in the not-too-distant future. And who knows, if 2 of them are Clark and Hilfenhaus - however poorly he's gone this season - I reckon they have a decent chance of success.

 

[Fiery]

Don't think exposure to Test cricket with the right captain will turn a wristspinner who's not even good enough to excel for his state into a Test-class bowler TBH.

I seriously hope Aus might play 4 seamers sometime in the not-too-distant future. And who knows, if 2 of them are Clark and Hilfenhaus - however poorly he's gone this season - I reckon they have a decent chance of success.

In Richard's ideal world, everyone would bat like Geoff Boycott or bowl like Ewan Chatfield

 

[Richard]

Never heard of the saying "variety is the spice of life" then?

 

[oz_fan]

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Shane Warne
3. Muttiah Muralitharin
4. Dennis Lillee
5. Curtley Ambrose
6. Richard Hadlee
7. Glenn McGrath
8. Imran Khan
9. Allan Donald
10. SF Barnes

 

[Fiery]

Never heard of the saying "variety is the spice of life" then?

oh, you have

 

[Days of Grace]

Keep the lists coming guys. I will do an update tomorrow, I think.

 

[NUFAN]

Keep the lists coming guys. I will do an update tomorrow, I think.

Bowling really isn't as fun as batting..

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I couldn't care less about how many five-fors or ten-fors he took. He made massive contributions to winning Tests on the relatively rare occasion conditions allowed him to. More than Peter Such ever did.

Giles on a turning pitch was very, very far from crap. Crap on a non-turner, though, like anyone who doesn't spin the ball much.

Pah! Peter Such was a much better bowler than Giles. Maybe he wasn't such a good cricketer mainly due to huge deficiencies with the bat and in the field (whilst Giles was a solid bat and more than useful fielder) How anyone could say that Giles was a better bowler than Such, I just don't know.

Such had a more than respectable test bowling average (for a stats fan like you, I guess that's pretty important) and even more impressively, he took wickets against Australia!

Believe it or not, I was actually at the test in 1993 at Lords after his big debut at Old Trafford. His figures at Lords were crap, but he still bowled pretty well. (Good to see Athers run out by Gatting on 99.... Oh how I laughed!! but that's by-the-by). When he was called upon again 6 years or so later, he performed bloody well again. If the batting line up hadn't let him down in Sydney in 1999, he would have won England that test.

An off-spinner whose record against Australia is not in question? Peter Such.

Gah. Why am I even arguing with you anyway. Where were you in 1993?

 

[bagapath]

1. Marshall
2. Barnes
3. Murali
4. Warne
5. Hadlee
6. McGrath
7. Imran
8. Lillee
9. Oreilly
10. Ambrose

 

[bond21]

1. Warne
2. McGrath
3. Lillee
4. Marshall
5. O'Reilly
6. Lindwall
7. Donald
8. Miller
9. Holding
10. Roberts

Seeing as the thread title is best bowlers of all time, I assumed this was a strict rule and kept Muralidaran out of it.

 

[bond21]

Bowling really isn't as fun as batting..

yea it becomes not to fun if you get smashed a lot

 

[Richard]

Pah! Peter Such was a much better bowler than Giles. Maybe he wasn't such a good cricketer mainly due to huge deficiencies with the bat and in the field (whilst Giles was a solid bat and more than useful fielder) How anyone could say that Giles was a better bowler than Such, I just don't know.

Such had a more than respectable test bowling average (for a stats fan like you, I guess that's pretty important) and even more impressively, he took wickets against Australia!

Believe it or not, I was actually at the test in 1993 at Lords after his big debut at Old Trafford. His figures at Lords were crap, but he still bowled pretty well. (Good to see Athers run out by Gatting on 99.... Oh how I laughed!! but that's by-the-by). When he was called upon again 6 years or so later, he performed bloody well again. If the batting line up hadn't let him down in Sydney in 1999, he would have won England that test.

An off-spinner whose record against Australia is not in question? Peter Such.

Gah. Why am I even arguing with you anyway. Where were you in 1993?

I have watched the 1993 Ashes, inclusive of Such's bowling in it, but believe it or not that's not the only part of Such's career.

How anyone could seriously argue that Such had a more impressive Test career than Giles I just don't know, though. About the only thing that could make one think Such the better bowler is that Such was a natural, Giles a converted seamer.

Such's overall Test average and his record against Australia might be better than Giles, but that honestly doesn't bother me, there's more to a bowler's performance than that. Such influenced (positively for his own team) the outcome of roughly 0 Tests. He bowled well on debut and reasonably in the second-innings at The SCG in 1998\99. England were never going to win that game, though - no chance.

Giles, on the other hand, has played a considerable part in winning quite a few Test-matches, and not just because he got more chances, either.

In any case, Giles' domestic record > Such's by miles, too.

The only thing Such has over Giles is that he didn't get picked for loads of Tests when he shouldn't have been - fortunately for him, that duty fell to Tufnell. Had Such been picked on so many flat pitches as Giles, he too would almost certainly average 40, maybe more.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

1. Warne
2. McGrath
3. Lillee
4. Marshall
5. O'Reilly
6. Lindwall
7. Donald
8. Miller
9. Holding
10. Roberts

Seeing as the thread title is best bowlers of all time, I assumed this was a strict rule and kept Muralidaran out of it.

@ Miller in top 10.

 

[FRAZ]

1. Marshall
2. Hadlee
3. Khan
4. Barnes
5. Ambrose
6. Lillee
7. Akram
8. McGrath
9. Warne
10. Murali

No need for a Waqar and Shoaib less list !

 

[NUFAN]

@ Miller in top 10.

Funky?